Click on title to link to the Leon Trotsky Internet Archive's copy of his 1935 article, "On The Seventh Congress Of The Communist International".
COMMENTARY
NO LEFTIST MOURNS THE DEATH OF THE ‘BUTCHER’ OF THE POPULAR FRONT ALLENDE GOVERNMENT-BUT, FOR HIS CRIMES AGAINST THE CHILEAN WORKING CLASS HE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DIE IN BED
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY THAT FIGHTS FOR A WORKERS GOVERNMENT
Today, Monday December 11, 2006, brings news of the death of old age of the notorious Chilean dictator, General Pinochet, infamous as the “butcher” of the democratically elected Popular Front government of Socialist Salvador Allende in 1973. As a result of the Pinochet-led coup against that government thousands of his fellow citizens and some foreign nationals were rounded up and executed, imprisoned or forced into exile. Not a pretty picture and goes a long way to explaining why his political opponents (as well as victims) are dancing in the streets of Santiago today. The real tragedy , however, was that he was able to rule so long and get away with his role in that suppression without having to face the wrath of his victims, mainly leftists and working class trade unionists. He should not have died in his sleep. However, that is not what is important about the Chilean events. In fact the passing of the General and the details of his nefarious career are best left to The New York Times obituary writers. Pinochet’s death, however, brings back to this writer the need to outline the lessons to be learned by militant leftists about what happened over thirty years ago with the rise and fall of Allende’s Popular Front government in Chile- and how to avoid those same mistakes again.
Why is such an analysis important today? For those who have been attentive to the developments in Central and Latin America there is every indication that some big battles by the working class and its allies are on the agenda, some have already occurred as in Mexico. Right now this is being played out mainly on the parliamentary level with the election of left nationalists and ‘soft’ socialists in such places as Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Chile, Peru and the near victory of Obrador in Mexico. In the grand scheme of things the first impulses of the masses to the left almost inevitably take parliamentary form and this wave appears to be no exception. That is why it is necessary for militants to be prepared and forewarned about reliance on a parliamentary strategy on the road to socialism- it aint going to happen on that road, boys and girls.
The following paragraphs are taken from my review of Leon Trotsky’s History of the Russian Revolution (see April 2006 archives) and sums up the experience of popular fronts in the modern era. Trotsky is all his later writing was adamantly opposed to participation in such formations by revolutionaries and he was not wrong on this issue. The experience of the Russian revolution, the only revolution that has overcome the problem of the popular front, should be etched in every militant’s mind.
Trotsky-
“All revolutions, and the Russian Revolution is no exception, after the first flush of victory over the overthrown old regime, face attempts by the more moderate revolutionary elements to suppress counterposed class aspirations in the interest of unity of the various classes that made the initial revolution. Thus, we see in the English Revolution of the 17th century a temporary truce between the rising bourgeoisie and yeoman farmers and pious urban artisans who formed the backbone of Cromwell’s New Model Army. In the Great French Revolution of the 18th century the struggle from the beginning depended mainly on the support of the lower urban plebian classes. As these revolutions demonstrate later after the overturn of the old order other classes through their parties which had previously remained passive enter the arena and try to place a break on revolutionary developments. Their revolutionary goals have been achieved in the initial overturn- for them the revolution is over.
They most commonly attempt to rule by way of some form of People’s Front government. This is a common term of art in Marxist terminology in the modern era that is used to represent a trans-class formation of working class and capitalist parties which ultimately have counterposed interests. The Russian Revolution also suffered a Popular Front period under various combinations and guises supported by ostensible socialists, the Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries, from February to October. One of the keys to Bolshevik success in October was that, with the arrival of Lenin from exile in April, the Bolsheviks shifted their strategy and tactics to a position of political opposition to the parties of the popular front. Later history has shown us in Spain in the 1930’s and more recently in Chile in the 1970’s how deadly support to such popular front formations can for revolutionaries. The various parliamentary popular fronts in France, Italy and elsewhere show the limitations in another less dramatic but no less dangerous fashion. In short, political support for Popular Fronts means the derailment of the revolution or worst. This is a hard lesson, paid for in blood, that all manner of reformist socialists try deflect or trivialize in pursuit of being at one with the ‘masses’. Witness today’s efforts, on a much lesser scale, by ostensible socialists to get all people of ‘good will, etc.’, including liberal and not so liberal Democrats under the same tent in the opposition to the American invasion of Iraq.”
A shorthand way to put this accumulated experience can be expressed this way. No political support to popular front formations. Military support to such formations against right-wing military attack or imperialist intervention. That, my friends, is sound revolutionary policy. Forward.
THIS IS PART OF A SERIES OF ARTICLES OF COMMENTARY ON THE 2006-2008 ELECTION CYCLE UNDER THE HEADLINE- FORGET THE DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS,
GREENS-BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
COMMENTARY
NO LEFTIST MOURNS THE DEATH OF THE ‘BUTCHER’ OF THE POPULAR FRONT ALLENDE GOVERNMENT-BUT, FOR HIS CRIMES AGAINST THE CHILEAN WORKING CLASS HE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DIE IN BED
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY THAT FIGHTS FOR A WORKERS GOVERNMENT
Today, Monday December 11, 2006, brings news of the death of old age of the notorious Chilean dictator, General Pinochet, infamous as the “butcher” of the democratically elected Popular Front government of Socialist Salvador Allende in 1973. As a result of the Pinochet-led coup against that government thousands of his fellow citizens and some foreign nationals were rounded up and executed, imprisoned or forced into exile. Not a pretty picture and goes a long way to explaining why his political opponents (as well as victims) are dancing in the streets of Santiago today. The real tragedy , however, was that he was able to rule so long and get away with his role in that suppression without having to face the wrath of his victims, mainly leftists and working class trade unionists. He should not have died in his sleep. However, that is not what is important about the Chilean events. In fact the passing of the General and the details of his nefarious career are best left to The New York Times obituary writers. Pinochet’s death, however, brings back to this writer the need to outline the lessons to be learned by militant leftists about what happened over thirty years ago with the rise and fall of Allende’s Popular Front government in Chile- and how to avoid those same mistakes again.
Why is such an analysis important today? For those who have been attentive to the developments in Central and Latin America there is every indication that some big battles by the working class and its allies are on the agenda, some have already occurred as in Mexico. Right now this is being played out mainly on the parliamentary level with the election of left nationalists and ‘soft’ socialists in such places as Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Chile, Peru and the near victory of Obrador in Mexico. In the grand scheme of things the first impulses of the masses to the left almost inevitably take parliamentary form and this wave appears to be no exception. That is why it is necessary for militants to be prepared and forewarned about reliance on a parliamentary strategy on the road to socialism- it aint going to happen on that road, boys and girls.
The following paragraphs are taken from my review of Leon Trotsky’s History of the Russian Revolution (see April 2006 archives) and sums up the experience of popular fronts in the modern era. Trotsky is all his later writing was adamantly opposed to participation in such formations by revolutionaries and he was not wrong on this issue. The experience of the Russian revolution, the only revolution that has overcome the problem of the popular front, should be etched in every militant’s mind.
Trotsky-
“All revolutions, and the Russian Revolution is no exception, after the first flush of victory over the overthrown old regime, face attempts by the more moderate revolutionary elements to suppress counterposed class aspirations in the interest of unity of the various classes that made the initial revolution. Thus, we see in the English Revolution of the 17th century a temporary truce between the rising bourgeoisie and yeoman farmers and pious urban artisans who formed the backbone of Cromwell’s New Model Army. In the Great French Revolution of the 18th century the struggle from the beginning depended mainly on the support of the lower urban plebian classes. As these revolutions demonstrate later after the overturn of the old order other classes through their parties which had previously remained passive enter the arena and try to place a break on revolutionary developments. Their revolutionary goals have been achieved in the initial overturn- for them the revolution is over.
They most commonly attempt to rule by way of some form of People’s Front government. This is a common term of art in Marxist terminology in the modern era that is used to represent a trans-class formation of working class and capitalist parties which ultimately have counterposed interests. The Russian Revolution also suffered a Popular Front period under various combinations and guises supported by ostensible socialists, the Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries, from February to October. One of the keys to Bolshevik success in October was that, with the arrival of Lenin from exile in April, the Bolsheviks shifted their strategy and tactics to a position of political opposition to the parties of the popular front. Later history has shown us in Spain in the 1930’s and more recently in Chile in the 1970’s how deadly support to such popular front formations can for revolutionaries. The various parliamentary popular fronts in France, Italy and elsewhere show the limitations in another less dramatic but no less dangerous fashion. In short, political support for Popular Fronts means the derailment of the revolution or worst. This is a hard lesson, paid for in blood, that all manner of reformist socialists try deflect or trivialize in pursuit of being at one with the ‘masses’. Witness today’s efforts, on a much lesser scale, by ostensible socialists to get all people of ‘good will, etc.’, including liberal and not so liberal Democrats under the same tent in the opposition to the American invasion of Iraq.”
A shorthand way to put this accumulated experience can be expressed this way. No political support to popular front formations. Military support to such formations against right-wing military attack or imperialist intervention. That, my friends, is sound revolutionary policy. Forward.
THIS IS PART OF A SERIES OF ARTICLES OF COMMENTARY ON THE 2006-2008 ELECTION CYCLE UNDER THE HEADLINE- FORGET THE DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS,
GREENS-BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
